# Powell v. Jones

> Illinois Supreme Court · December 14, 1973 · 56 Ill. 2d 70

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527264

## Case

- **Full name:** DONALD W. POWELL Et Al., Appellees, v. NOLAN B. JONES Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 14, 1973
- **Citations:** 56 Ill. 2d 70; 305 N.E.2d 166; 1973 Ill. LEXIS 209
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kluczynski
- **Judges:** Underwood, Kluczynski
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527264

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “every public employee does not have a right to continued employment,” but “a public employee can have such a right dependent upon the surrounding circum- stances including existing rules and understandings”
- explaining that a layoff is “not, ordinarily, viewed as a permanent situa- tion”

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE KLUCZYNSKI, specially concurring:
I agree that due process does not require a plenary hearing of the form contemplated by plaintiffs prior to instituting a layoff of certified State employees. However, I believe that this court’s opinion should have further addressed itself to certain matters contained in the record. It indicates that members of plaintiffs’ class had filed petitions for reconsideration concerning their layoffs within 15 days of the receipt thereof and the Director had not yet rendered a decision at the time this action was commenced on June 27, 1973. Departmental Rule 2 — 596 provides:
“Within 15 days of receipt of notice of a certified employee’s layoff, such employee may directly petition the Director of Personnel in writing for reconsideration of his decision approving the layoff. In the event a request for reconsideration is made the Director shall again review and investigate the application of these rules and the validity of the layoff. Notice of the final decision of the Director shall be served on the employee in person or by registered mail.”
There may also be others who received notice of their layoff within 15 days preceding June 27 or subsequent thereto. Members of this latter group might not have requested reconsideration under Rule 2 — 596 or section 12.01 of article XII of the Rules of the Civil Service Commission because it would appear to them that no disposition of their petitions could be effectuated when the circuit court entered a temporary restraining order on June 27 prohibiting defendants from attempting to review the matter. I believe their position is analogous to that provided for in section 23 of the Limitations Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 83, par. 24), which provides that when a commencement of an action is stayed by court order the time during which said order is in effect is not included within the limitation period.
The circuit court held Departmental Rule 2 — 596 and article XII of the Rules of the Civil Service Commission unconstitutional. In reversing that decision I believe that the members of plaintiffs’ class, who may still be entitled to exercise their rights under these provisions, should be allowed this prerogative. I would therefore additionally remand this matter to the circuit court to permit them the opportunity to establish whether they might be included within the aforementioned categories for purposes of seeking administrative relief.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527264. Public record. Not legal advice.